HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 09 2009 PC Minutescm
Albemarle County Planning Commission
June 9, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, meeting and work session on
Tuesday, June 9, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Linda Porterfield Marcia Joseph, Calvin Morris, Bill Edgerton, Thomas Loach,
Vice Chair and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Eric Strucko arrived at 6:05 p.m. Don Franco and Julia Monteith,
AICP, non -voting representative for the University of Virginia were absent.
Other officials present were Summer Frederick, Senior Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning;
Joan McDowell, Principal Planner; Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning; Rob Heide, Zoning Enforcement
Manager; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County
Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Loach called the regular meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. and established a quorum.
Committee Reports:
Mr. Loach invited committee reports from the Commissioners.
Mr. Morris reported that the Pantops Master Plan Steering Committee held an Open House a
week and half ago. The committee is working on a report from the data received to report to the
Commission and Board of Supervisors in September.
Ms. Joseph reported that the MPO Tech Committee met. Most of the meeting was spent in
discussion with the consultant hired to look at the transit system.
There being no other committee reports the meeting moved to the next item.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Loach invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none,
the meeting moved to the next item.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting — June 3, 2009
Mr. Cilimberg reviewed the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors on June 3, 2009.
Mr. Strucko arrived at 6:05 p.m. and took over the meeting as Chair.
Consent Agenda:
Approval of minutes: March 24, 2009
SUB-2009-00061 Foxcroft Multi -Use (Playfield)-Waiver
The request is for approval to construct a play area in common open space, in accordance with Sec.
4.7.2, and of waiver of Sec. 4.2 to allow disturbance of critical slopes. The property, described as Tax
Map 76M1, Section 4, Parcel OAO, contains approximately 4.42 acres and is zoned PUD- Planned Unit
Development. The site is located within the Foxcroft Subdivision at the southern end of Rolling Valley
Court. This parcel is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District and has a Neighborhood Density
Comprehensive Plan designation within Urban Area 4. (Summer Frederick)
ZTA-2009-00011 Definitions including Home Occupation's — Resolution of Intent (Amelia McCulley)
(Note: See Attachment 1 — Resolution of Intent)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009
Mr. Strucko read the items on the consent agenda so that members of the public present to discuss these
Vwrr matters would know. He asked if any Commissioner would like to pull an item from the consent agenda.
Ms. Joseph requested to ask Ms. Frederick a couple of questions about SUB-2009-00061 Foxcroft Multi -
Use (Playfield) Wavier. She asked if the owner is now the Foxcroft Homeowner's Association who has
taken over the majority of it and if Attachment D reflects what they want to do.
Ms. Frederick replied that was correct.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Joseph seconded for approval of the consent agenda.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Strucko noted that the consent agenda was approved.
Items Requesting Deferral:
SP-2008-00060 Albemarle Baptist Christian School (Signs # 2 &22) PROPOSED: Private school with
up to 40 students and up to 5 teaching staff on a 6.26 acre property in conjunction with the existing
Albemarle Baptist Church. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural,
forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); EC Entrance Corridor -
Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of
development along routes of tourist access. SECTION: 10.2.2.5 Private schools. COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and
natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development lots). ENTRANCE
CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 1685 Roslyn Ridge Rd. at n/w corner of Hydraulic Rd. (Rt. 743) and
Roslyn Ridge Rd. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061000000001 E0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett (Eryn
Brennan)
DEFER TO JUNE 23, 2009, DUE TO A SIGN POSTING ERROR
Mr. Strucko noted that there has been a deferral request for SP-2008-00060 to June 23, 2009.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the deferral was requested by staff due to a sign posting error in each case.
Staff wants to make sure that they had the proper sign posting before the public hearing.
Mr. Strucko opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being none, he closed the
public hearing to bring the matter before the Commission.
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Morris seconded to approve staffs request for deferral of SP-
2008-00060, Albemarle Baptist Christian School to June 23, 2009.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Strucko said that this item is being deferred to June 23, 2009. The Planning Commission would
welcome public input at that time.
SP-2008-00066 20 South Office Amendment (Signs # 19 & 28) PROPOSED: Amend SP 200200022
(Home Occupation Class B) to allow three storage sheds for an existing catering business ZONING
CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). SECTION: 10.2.2 (31) Home Occupation Class B.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development
lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: 1156 Roundtop Farm; east side of Rt. 20 Scottsville
Road, approx. 1400 feet north of Rt. 708 Red Hill Rd. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 102000000017E0.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville (Eryn Brennan)
DEFER TO JUNE 23, 2009, DUE TO A SIGN POSTING ERROR
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —JUNE 9, 2009 2
Mr. Strucko noted that staff has requested deferral due to a sign posting error. He asked if there was
anyone present that came specifically to address this. He opened the public hearing and invited public
comment. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Commission.
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Morris seconded to approve staff's request for deferral of SP-
2008-00066, 20 South Office Amendment to June 23, 2009.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Strucko said that this item is being deferred to June 23, 2009.
Regular Items:
SDP-2009-00021 Patricia Ann Byrom Forest Preserve Park Improvement — Preliminary
The request is for preliminary site plan approval to allow the construction of a sixty-five (65) space parking
lot, park access road, and gravel pedestrian path. This application includes a request to modify Section
18-4.2 to allow for disturbance of critical slopes. The property, described as Tax Map 6 - Parcel 28D,
contains approximately 213.9230 acres and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The site, known as Byrom Forest
Preserve is located on the west side of Blackwell's Hollow Road (SR 810) northeast of its intersection with
SR 629. This parcel is located in the White Hall Magisterial District and is designated as Rural Area in the
Comprehensive Plan. (Summer Frederick)
Mr. Strucko noted that SDP-2009-00021 Patricia Ann Byrom Forest Preserve Park Improvement was a
deferred item back before the Commission.
Ms. Frederick said this request was deferred from the May 19 meeting and the staff report remains the
same from that meeting. Staff emailed some additional information to the Commission last night. That
included some other staff reports and a letter that was sent by a representative from Parks and
'ter: Recreation to neighbors that attended a meeting on site and also a revised plan which was shown on the
screen. The items revised in this project include:
The parking has been reduced from 60+ spaces to just over 29 spaces.
There has been an addition of a fence across the front of the property and along the boundary. The
access will be gated and will be opened and closed by a person designated by Parks and Recreation.
Representatives of Parks and Recreation are present to answer any questions.
Mr. Strucko invited questions from the Commission for staff.
Mr. Loach asked if the original parking was 57 spaces.
Ms. Frederick replied that it was 57 original parking spaces plus 8 horse trailer parking spaces. It has
been reduced to 29 regular parking spaces and 4 horse trailer parking spaces.
Mr. Loach asked what the reduction from 57 to 29 parking spaces based on.
Ms. Frederick replied that the applicant cut the parking in half. There were concerns from the neighbors
regarding traffic coming in and out of the park. They asked to start out with this number and then if the
need arises for more parking they will add it at that point.
Mr. Loach asked if there was room for parking expansion on the plan.
Ms. Frederick replied yes because what calls for grading in the area designated for future parking will all
be done at once. It just won't be constructed.
Mr. Loach noted that he had suggested that the gate opening be automated instead of hiring someone to
open the gates in the morning and close them at night.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009
Ms. Frederick referred the question to the Parks and Recreation staff.
Bob Crickenberger, with Parks and Recreation, replied that in response to the question they feel and find
that it would be best if they had an attendant to go to the park and hopefully hire someone local to do this.
To have someone on site in the morning to open the park, check out the facility, report any damages or
anything that needs intermediate attention as well as do the exact same thing in the evening is vital to this
operation. There were a lot of questions and concerns from the neighbors in regards to the ongoing
maintenance schedule. Parks and Recreation does this at all of their other facilities and it works very
nicely.
Mr. Loach said that with regards to the neighbors he felt that with Park's proposal they would know who
was in the park and at what time they left the park.
Mr. Crickenberger pointed out that they would be able to regulate the horse back riding from internal
permitting. In terms of a gate opener this has worked in the past. They feel that to have someone
physically check out the facility morning and noon work better than an actual gate keeper.
Mr. Strucko opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Joe Ford, resident of 5758 Chap Place Lane, said that his family's property adjoins the proposed park.
They did have a meeting with Ms. Frederick, the architect, Mr. Loach, Mr. Crickenberger and others. He
agreed with Mr. Crickenberger to have someone open and close the park. They also feel it is vital to the
operation of the park. Parks and Recreation does a good job at their other parks. They have a neighbor
who lives in the community that works for Mr. Crickenberger. With meeting on the park topics, he as an
adjoining land owner and representing others, they really are not in favor of the park. However, they feel
that the park is coming and that Mr. Crickenberger and his staff have done a good job in addressing their
concerns. They have a letter from Mr. Crickenberger in which they feel that they have addressed their
major issues. They are for reducing the parking and hopefully reducing the traffic on a two-lane very
crooked road. He was still not happy about the disturbance of critical slopes and how much the county
frowns on that at least for individuals. They need to make sure that they use a fair trail when they smooth
the mortar out to make sure that individuals get the same consideration that the county does. As far as
the park, he felt that Mr. Crickenberger's staff is very professional. They addressed the issues with the
commercial horseback riding, the hunting on the property, the hours of operation and the noise. Again,
they still don't feel that this is a great place for a park. It is out in the middle of nowhere. The major issue
that still needs to be addressed is how emergencies are going to be handled out there. Basically, that is
the only question that remains or stone left to be unturned. He thanked everyone for meeting on the
property. It meant a great deal showing them where the entrances as well as the land that will be
disturbed. They also look forward to being on the board, which Mr. Crickenberger has proposed to have
adjoining landowners on a board and be represented. Mr. Loach spoke that he would like to have
someone from Crozet on that board. He was not for or opposed to that, but just thinks that the neighbors
who live out in the middle of nowhere should know best about that. He would leave that up to them to
decide.
Keith Ford noted that they would have permits before trailers come in with the horses. He suggested that
they consider that other parks have a fee for that. That fee is used for the clean up. There can be an
abundance of trash with a lot of horse people coming in. They have been picking up trash on 810 for 19
years. Their sign will come down when the park goes up because they will not be able to keep up.
The last time they got 39 bags of trash, which included old tires, commodes and ice boxes. They are
going to have to abandon ship and won't be able to do it. He suggested that Mr. Loach talk to VDOT and
see if they can get the mowing of the sides cut back more than one time a year. They are riding in a
tunnel right now. The Planning Commission knows that 810 was made a scenic bicycle road. They have
bicycles everywhere. Now they are going to triple the cars coming in and going to the park with big horse
trailers. He owned a horse trailer and knew they don't move them too fast around 810. The Commission
should take into consideration that there has never been but one alteration on 810 since 1956 that means
widening the road or anything of that nature. One bridge in White Hall was widened due to the loss of
three lives. He asked that they look into that. He asked with the current economic situation how they
would afford this park. He asked if anyone had done a graph on how much it is going to cost the
taxpayers. He was really shocked at the meeting to learn that they had paid $150,000 of taxpayer's
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 4
money to enter this park. This park adjoins the Shenandoah National Park that runs for miles on end. He
err thought that they ought to go to the drawing board to see what the impact this will have on the poor
people. If they get their tax increased more they will be doing the same thing to the middle class man that
they did when the national park took over. He was not in favor of the park, but knew that it is coming.
The adjoining property owners need to know what their buffer zones are. It does need to be in writing.
They need to know if this is going to start off at a little scale and then explode like a lot other parks
because the roads will not handle it out there. He asked that they get into those details. He felt those
were some things that need to be addressed. He suggested that the first move to make is to go to VDOT
about keeping the mowing down. If not there is going to be a tragedy with the roads like they are now.
Ms. Joseph asked staff to read the letter from Parks and Recreation so everyone knows what Parks Rec
has offered to do.
Ms. Frederick read the letter from Bob Crickenberger to the neighbors regarding an agreement about the
operation of the park. (ATTACHMENT 2 — Memo dated JUNE 9, 2009 FROM BOB CRICKENBERGER
OF PARKS AND RECREATION ADDRESSED TO Tim and Sarah Henley, Joe and Ginny Ford, Keith and
Mary Ford, Hunter Lewis and Chris Ripper regarding Patricia Ann Byrom Forest Preserve Park)
Mr. Strucko invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter
before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Loach asked regarding fees if it is a probability to charge fees for the horse trailers to cover some of
the clean up costs as Mr. Ford had suggested there will be with it.
Mr. Crickenberger replied that they have not gotten to that point at this level. They could certainly look at
that and the feasibility. That would be one advantage that they will have by having Mr. Ford and other
members of the community on that task force or committee to help Parks and Rec develop not only the
internal but the overall governing policies of the park itself.
Mr. Loach assumed as far as the mowing that they will be mowing the areas inside and adjacent to the
fence. He asked if Parks and Rec could do the roadway since they were already there as well or is that
strictly VDOT.
Mr. Crickenberger replied that is generally VDOT.
Mr. Loach noted that the Commission approves critical slope waiver when they are appropriate for the
project.
Mr. Strucko asked staff to describe the critical slopes disturbance proposed for this site.
Ms. Frederick noted that there are critical slopes for the access way, a small portion of the parking lot that
is adjacent to the property line and some of the trails as well.
Mr. Loach agreed with the no hunting rule since families using the park would feel uncomfortable if
hunting was allowed. Parks and Recreation did a good job in addressing all of the issues. He was glad
to see that there would be room for expansion if needed. It felt that it is important to have Crozet
represented on the park board because the park will serve the whole area.
Mr. Strucko noted that another concern expressed was about the emergency services. This is serviced
by Western Albemarle Rescue Squad and Crozet Fire Department with Earlysville as the second
responder.
Mr. Crickenberger noted that they were also going to be installing a call box for 911.
Mr. Strucko pointed out that the response time was going to be long.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the purchase of this land in the budget.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 5
Mr. Crickenberger replied yes that it was 600 acres of dedicated land. The additional property that was
purchased for access was in the county budget and the development of the park was in the current CIP.
Mr. Morris thanked Mr. Ford and others who brought this to the Commission's attention. He felt that staff,
Mr. Loach and Parks and Recreation responded very quickly along with the neighbors and residents out
there and he was very impressed with the results.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Edgerton seconded to approve the critical slopes waiver for SP-2009-
00021, Patricia Ann Byrom Forest Preserve Park Improvement — Preliminary with the proposed changes.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the approval includes all the things in the letter from Parks and Recreation.
Ms. Frederick said that the information in the letter is regarding the park's operation. That is an
agreement that Parks and Recreation has agreed to do in regards to what happens at the park. That is
not part of the critical slopes waiver.
Mr. Kamptner said that if it is going to be made a condition the conditions need to be connected to the
critical slopes waiver itself.
Mr. Morris said that he did not see the need to tie it in. Parks and Recreation has always lived up to their
agreements.
Mr. Loach noted that they were forming a board to discuss this further with the community. There will
probably be some more issues that will be ironed out by then. He did not want to preclude the
Commission from making conditions when there may be more later.
Ms. Porterfield asked that the minutes reflect this letter and the fact that the neighbors have become
willing to go ahead and work with Parks and Rec because they are going to do this type of thing.
(Attachment 2)
Mr. Strucko asked to personally thank Mr. Joe Ford. He also apologized because the last time he was
here he exhibited a great deal of patience and persistence. That is quite admirable. He enabled the
Commission to get better educated and fully understand this particular issue and how it impacts the
neighbors. He thanked him since the neighbors really benefited from his persistence and patience with
the Commission. He was glad that they were able to catch this prior to the end of their last meeting which
enabled the meeting to be held between him, county staff and Mr. Loach. He felt that all and all it worked
out well. It would not have happened without him being here. He apologized again for not making it clear
what they were doing in their consent agenda at their last meeting. Changes in their approach to the
consent agenda have been made due to his actions. As he noticed at the beginning of this meeting he
read the consent agenda items to make sure that there was no further confusion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Franco absent)
Mr. Strucko said SP-2009-21, Patricia Ann Byrom Forest Preserve Park Improvement — Preliminary was
approved. This request does not go to the Board of Supervisors.
Public Hearing Items:
SP-2008-00058 Harris Garage (sign # 23) PROPOSED: Amend SP 00-49 Thomas Harris Garage to
expand the public garage on approximately a .60 acre portion of a 3.17 acre property. ZONING
CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). SECTION: 10.2.2 (37) Public Garage. COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and
natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development lots). ENTRANCE
CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: 6929 Markwood Road, approx. one-half mile north of Davis Shop Road.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 008000000035A0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall (Joan McDowell)
Ms. McDowell noted that last month the Planning Commission held a public hearing for Harris Garage
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 6
and recommended approval for both the garage and the critical slopes waivers. Unfortunately, there was
1%W an error in our notifying the public in the sign that was supposed to be placed in front of the property was
not done correctly. A citizen called it to staff's attention. The sign was placed correctly that same day.
Staff decided that the public had an interest in having the full public hearing occur for the Planning
Commission and the Board. The request could stay on the Board's schedule if the Commission held the
public hearing tonight. Essentially this is a do over. She summarized and updated the staff report, as
follows.
This an amendment to an existing staff report for SP-2001-49 to allow an expansion of the auto repair
garage that was approved in 2002 for Harris Auto. It is an existing garage located in the rural areas.
There is a lot of history which is included in the staff report. The approval of SP-2001-49 corrected some
violations and brought Harris Auto into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code. In
2004 zoning determined that a garage addition to enclose an outside lift and to provide some storage
space would not constitute an expansion of the special use permits and that building was built. In
December, 2008 new violations were recorded and the notice of violation was mailed to the applicant.
Consequently SP-2008-58 was submitted as a request to amend the earlier special use permit in order to
correct the violations and make the plan current.
To give an idea of the changes on the site staff presented side by side aerials of the site. The earlier
aerial in 2002 provides an idea of the site differences between the application then and what has taken
place now. She noted the changes to the garage in 2001 and how it looked now with the addition. The
proposal is for two carports, the paint mixing building, additional parking for 15 spaces, paved parking and
access (which has already been done), an outside car lift, relocated trash dumpster to area of critical
slopes disturbance and to incorporate the building expansion into the special use permit. Additionally
there is a storage unit and specifically to designate the garage area from the residential or the personal
space. This has been a very big issue. It was discussed in the staff report to designate a specific area
only for the garage. If the applicant decides to park in the garage area and use those spaces, then those
spaces are used. This was determined to be the best solution by not only the applicant but staff in feeling
like if they could separate these two uses it would better serve the applicant and the zoning enforcement.
Staff reviewed the concept plan noting that the driveway was relocated with the special use permit in
2002. She noted the expanded garage, the new storage garage, the existing dumpster, two carports (a
2-space and 3-space carport) existing and private parking behind the residence. She also noted the two
areas of critical slopes.
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The public garage is an existing operation that provides a service to the surrounding community.
2. The applicant has made improvements to the garage and the parking area.
3. The use is consistent with the Rural Area, if all impacts of this use are mitigated through the
conditions.
Staff has identified the following factor unfavorable to this application:
1. The garage, if conditions are not implemented, compromises the character of the Rural Areas
district.
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP2008-58 Harris
Garage Amendment, subject to the conditions of approval as listed in the staff report.
There is also a request for a critical slopes waiver. The applicant has applied for critical slope waivers for
disturbances that already have been made on two areas of the property: generally between the garage
and the adjacent neighbor on the north and between the garage and the Beaver Dam Creek on the east.
The applicant has planted some evergreens. The applicant has graveled behind the garage. The staff
report discusses the critical slopes and the engineering analysis. The Planning Commission approved
the critical slopes waiver with the three recommended changes to the conditions at the last meeting.
Mr. Strucko invited questions for staff. There being none, he opened the public hearing and invited the
applicant to address the Commission.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 7
Dave Wyant, engineer and representative for the Harris family, pointed out that not putting the sign out
turned out to be a blessing because the Harris' were not present at the last meeting and it allowed him
the opportunity to go over this agreement with the Harris'. He went over each condition one by one to
make sure that the Harris' clearly understand what they write as conditions on the plan. After going over
the proposal with the applicant he asked the Planning Commission to consider the following three
changes to the conditions:
1. The Harris' would like to change the hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m.
to 10:00 p.m. He distributed a letter from all the adjacent neighbors in support of the change in
condition 7.
2. Condition 8 keeps the personal cars separate from the business vehicles. They are asking the
Harris' to screen their personal cars, but nobody else in the county is asked to screen their
personal vehicles. He asked to leave the planting or the Bradford Pears along that area. As far
as 20' in width the plantings already out there are staggered. He asked that the condition be
made clear and specific so as to avoid problems with enforcement in the future.
3. Regarding the buffer in the critical slopes waiver in condition 3, he had discussed with Glenn
Brooks about putting in 10 pine trees. He emailed Mr. Brooks, but did not receive a response.
He looked back and found that he had recommended 16 Hawthorne trees in a staggered row in
that area, which trees grow from 20' to 30' tall and 20' to 30' in width. It is about 170' across that
area. If they put 8 in a row staggered 15' in the front the trees will just barely touch each other
when full grown. The buffer is not for screening everything, but protection of the stream that is on
the adjacent property. The water that runs down the back side of this property sits in a swale and
sort of ponds in that area. So the Hawthorne trees are tolerant to a wet condition. There is a little
berm at the edge of the property on the Harris property that would retain the water running off of
this slope.
Mr. Strucko invited public comment.
Preston Gentry spoke in support of Harris' Garage and asked that the special use permit be approved.
He uses the garage quite often and he conducts a respectful clean business. The garage is an asset to
our community. Mr. Harris has quite often helped at Crozet Fire Department to repair vehicles in a timely
manner. He does a very good job and sets a good example for our county and community.
Fred Burelle spoke in support of Harris' Garage because he provides support to a rural community that
has no gas stations. The shop is the only shop in their area. He lives about 4 miles from the garage in
Greene County. He is an auto mechanic willing to help the community and is an asset to their
community. He attested to Mr. Harris' character and asked that the request be approved.
Scott Burrelle said that Harris Garage is a vital asset to their community. He goes above and beyond
what one would expect from a typical auto repair shop. He treats each and every customer fairly and
honestly. The buildings and grounds are always kept up. He noted that his wife was a rural carrier and
that the change in hours to 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. would be fantastic. He asked that the request be
approved.
Joel Snow, resident of Dyke, spoke in support of the Harris request. He noted that he was in favor of the
request because of Mr. Harris' involvement in the community. The garage has been an asset to the rural
community for many years as a mechanic. He felt that Harris' Garage was a good example of someone
being in compliance with what has been asked.
Thomas Scholar, resident of Bentivar, said that he had known Mr. Harris for well over 25 years. He brings
his vehicles to him to repair. He echoed what everyone has said about Harris' Garage. He is without a
double the most competent, fair person he had ever met doing his line of work. He has recommended
many other persons to go out to him. It is really nice to be able to get off work and take your vehicle out
to the garage rather than take time during the day. He asked the Commission to approve the request.
Joe Ford said that he had known Mr. Harris for a long time. He asked where in the county there was
144"` another garage that is kept like Mr. Harris keeps his property. He noted that this garage is definitely an
asset to the community not only for what Mr. Harris does for them as residents but also it is one of the few
garages that are not an eyesore. He asked the Commission to approve the critical slopes waiver.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 8
Nelson Morris, an adjoining neighbor, said that Mr. Harris is an asset to their community. He keeps the
garage very neat. His biggest concern is that Mr. Harris will pull out because of all of the hassle he is
getting. He hoped that would not happen and he would stay in the community. He asked the
Commission to approve the request.
Rick Morris, an adjoining neighbor, said that his house was directly across the road from the garage. He
had no complaints since Mr. Harris has been a very good neighbor. He is an asset to the community. He
had no problem with the headlights or noise from the garage. He supported his operation and asked the
Commission to approve the request.
Keith Ford said that since the park is coming and they know there will be more traffic on their road he
thought that it is a great need for J.R. Harris' garage to stay open. He thinks that they need to consider
that. He had been at his shop several times and seen no soil erosion problems or polluted streams. He
knows that he has done a great deal for the Blue Ridge School. The garage will provide a good service
to those traveling on 810. He asked for approval of the request.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Strucko closed the public hearing to bring the matter before
the Planning Commission.
Ms. Joseph asked how they act on this when they have already approved it.
Mr. Strucko noted that the applicant had proposed some changes to the conditions.
Ms. Joseph asked what the process was and if they need to void what the Commission has already done
or open it back up.
Mr. Kamptner replied that since there was a defect in notice the Planning Commission can essentially
treat the prior action as a nullity.
Mr. Loach questioned the Eastern Red Cedars as opposed to the Hawthorns.
Ms. Joseph recalled that the Cedar carries a contaminant to the Hawthorns or vice a versa. So the two
trees are not good for companion plantings. The Hawthorn by itself would be fine. One tree is an
evergreen and one is deciduous.
Ms. McDowell said that the Eastern Red Cedars was recommended since it does not drop it leaves and
there is a clear view of the house next door from the garage on that area of critical slopes. She did not
learn about the Hawthorns until today. She talked to the county landscape architect and he noted that
there are different kinds. He said that a Washington he believed might be okay, but in the rural areas
they really like to have a variety of plantings and naturalized rather than a staggered row kind of thing. It
is her understanding that what was proposed was on the critical slopes in the back between where the
parking is. It would just replace the naturalized landscaping that was removed before the slope was
disturbed, which would be satisfactory.
Ms. Joseph asked if the purpose was to hold the soil or to be a visual barrier.
Ms. McDowell replied that there were two purposes. The county engineer's purpose is to hold the soil. In
some instances the purpose is not only to hold the soil but to also shield the property next door.
Ms. Joseph noted that Mr. Wyant was looking for something that liked wet feet, which she was not so
sure the Cedars will.
Ms. McDowell noted that Brent Nelson had suggested the Red Cedars.
Ms. Joseph asked if they have to specify the plants at this point. Is that something that the applicant and
staff can work out?
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 9
Ms. McDowell replied yes. She noted that for some reason in the letter sent to Mr. Wyant the height of the
planting was left out in the new condition 8. But in the staff report it is actually there.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that in condition 8 it says that the land screening shall supplement existing landscape
approval with the last special use permit and consists of existing Red Cedar or other material approved
by the planning director. Therefore he felt that the flexibility is already there.
Mr. Loach and Mr. Morris said they had not problem with the 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. change in hours of
operation.
Ms. Porterfield said if they go to 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. they need to put in that the neighbors said
overwhelmingly that they would like those hours.
Ms. Joseph noted that she had no problem with 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. because it is an off time. It is not
going to put traffic on the same road that people are getting and forth to work on. The hours help dilute
that.
Ms. McDowell noted that she was surprised that the neighbors were not present to speak who called
saying that the sign was not there and that they would really wanted the public hearing held again. But
she could say that they had some concerns. One concern she heard more than once was that at night
and in the daytime when the cars were tested there is some going up and down the road sometimes at a
high rate of speed. There was some concern about that. They have heard from the adjacent neighbors
that everything is okay, but that there were some voices stating their concerns.
Mr. Strucko noted that the existing law talks about noise and speed.
Ms. Porterfield said she had some concerns with the hours from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. She felt that 10 p.m.
was too late. She suggested 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.
Mr. Strucko noted that they had heard that the off hours help accommodate families on a 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
schedule.
Mr. Morris noted that due to the location and the very rural nature of the area that the time requested
makes more sense from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. But that is just his opinion.
Mr. Loach agreed.
Mr. Strucko asked Mr. Wyant if there were any other changes proposed.
Mr. Wyant pointed out that the Hawthorns were proposed in the area of the stream buffer and not up
front. Due to the storm water requirement he was looking for something that could tolerate the wetness of
that lower area in the back.
Ms. Joseph noted that the screening being requested to be removed was in the front.
Mr. Wyant replied yes that it was where the personal cars are parked. He noted that the problem in the
back that they had was the shallow soil. It was rocky. What Glenn Brooks has proposed is a 3' retaining
wall and then they would put in some top soil and shrubs. The reason the trees were removed from back
there was that they were falling on the building. Therefore, the Harris' over the past several years have
cut them down. The Harris' are going to put some top soil and shrubs on the slope to stabilize the area.
It was a critical slope area. He just wanted to clarify those few things.
Mr. Loach noted that it was worth mentioning that the Commission did pass this request on May 5 by a
vote of 5:0 including the critical slopes waiver just for clarification. He suggested approval of the request
with changes to the conditions as discussed tonight that the parking hours change to 10:00 a.m. to 10:00
p.m. and that condition 8 was covered with the language to be a variety so that the Hawthorns could be
planted.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 10
Ms. Joseph pointed out that one of the things Mr. Wyant brought up was the screening required in the
front for their own personal vehicles, too.
Mr. Kamptner noted that it was in condition 8 beginning in the third line.
Mr. Loach felt that concern could be worked out with staff. He had objection to him leaving it out since it
deals with the personal side rather than the business side.
Mr. Cilimberg asked if they would take out the section that says "and between the areas designated as
parking for personal vehicles and Markwood Road."
Mr. Loach replied yes.
Ms. McDowell noted that normally she would not have included that, but because they have 15 cars or
personal vehicles with a variety of chassis that is why that was added.
Mr. Loach felt that staffs concerns were legitimate, but he could live without that condition.
Mr. Kamptner asked for clarification if the remaining part of that condition should remain, and Mr. Loach
replied yes.
Mr. Kamptner asked does the minimum height of the tree need to be the 4' as stated in the staff report.
The height is missing as Mr. Wyant pointed out.
Mr. Loach asked that the condition include the minimum height of the tree as 4'.
Ms. Joseph requested to ask Ms. McCulley a question. She asked if inoperable vehicles are defined in
the ordinance.
Ms. McCulley replied yes.
Ms. Joseph asked if someone can have as many operable vehicles on your personal property as you
want, and Ms. McCulley replied yes.
Ms. Joseph noted that it was alright as long as there is a tag on the vehicle.
Ms. McCulley replied that the car has to have a current inspection and tag. Part of being operable is that
they have to be assembled. For example, if someone had a current inspection and tag but it was
completely disassembled with no motor, then it is inoperable.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out that she voted for the request last time, but could not go for the 10 a.m. to 10
p.m. hours.
Action on SP-2008-00058:
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Morris seconded to approve SP-2008-00058, Harris Garage
Amendment with the recommended conditions as specified and amended at the meeting.
1. Development of the use shall be in accord with the conceptual plan titled "Amended Site Plan
Harris' Garage", prepared by DW Enterprises, and dated March 16, 2009 (hereinafter, the
"Conceptual Plan"), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To
be in accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following major elements within the
development essential to the design of the development:
■ The size, height and location of the proposed buildings (16' X 307maximum 24' high);
■ The area designated for the special use (public garage);
■ The size, height and location of the existing buildings/structures (original garage — 1,936 square
feet/24 feet high/3 vehicle bays; garage expansion —1,496 square feet/24 feet high/1 vehicle bay;
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 11
enclosed compressor room; paint mixing room; one outside lift; one dumpster pad/fence
enclosure; 3 parking spaces carport; 2 parking spaces carport);
■ The number (maximum15 spaces public garage) and location of the vehicle parking spaces;
■ The two (2) signage locations at the entrance to the special use permit area. The signs shall
state, "All vehicles beyond this point must be placed in a marked parking space" and be a
maximum of four (4) square feet.
■ The sign location at the area designated as "Parking for Private Vehicles." The sign shall state,
"Parking for only personal vehicles of the Harris Family" and be a maximum of four (4) square
feet.
2. Gasoline sales are prohibited;
3. The sale or rental of vehicles or other motorized equipment is prohibited;
4. All repairing or equipping of vehicles shall take place inside the existing garage, with the
exception of vehicles being repaired on the vehicle lift located adjacent to the garage;
5. The outdoor storage of parts, equipment, machinery and junk is prohibited;
6. Only personal vehicles may be parked in the area marked "parking for personal vehicles" on the
Conceptual Plan. No more than fifteen (15) vehicles associated with the public garage use shall
be located outside the garage. All vehicles associated with the public garage use shall be parked
in the spaces shown as "for garage only" on the Conceptual Plan. Any vehicles parked outside
the area marked "parking for personal vehicles" shall be considered to be associated with the
public garage and are counted in the fifteen (15) vehicle maximum.
7. The hours of operation shall be between 10 A.M. and 10 P.M., Monday through Saturday. These
hours of operation do not prohibit customers from dropping off vehicles before 8 A.M. on the days
of operation; and
8. Within three (3) months following approval of the site plan or site plan waiver, the permittee shall
install and thereafter maintain a minimum twenty (20)-foot deep landscape evergreen -screening
buffer to shield the view of the garage and garage parking from Markwood Road. This landscape
screening shall supplement existing landscape approved with SP 2001-49 and consist of Eastern
Red Cedar or other material approved by the Planning Director, a minimum 4 feet high at
planting, and planted in staggered rows with a maximum of ten (10) feet on center spacing
between the landscape materials. The permittee shall also submit a landscape plan with the site
plan application that will be subject to the approval of the Planning Director or the Planning
Director's designee; and
9. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all
abutting properties. A lighting plan (for new lighting) limiting light levels at all property lines to no
greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for
approval.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:1. (Porterfield voted nay) (Franco absent)
Ms. McDowell pointed out that that a motion was needed on the critical slopes waiver. There were some
changes discussed and agreed to at the last meeting. The changes are in the action letter.
Motion on Critical Slopes Waiver:
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Morris seconded to approve the critical slopes waiver request
associated with SP-2008-00058 Harris Garage — Amendment with the conditions recommended by staff
as amended removing the recommended condition 1 and amending condition 3 to remove the language
between the parentheses.
1. The retaining wall proposed in the rear of the garage building must be at least 3' high, and topsoil,
matting, and permanent seed or mulch and shrubs must be applied to the cut slope for adequate
stabilization.
2. To provide stormwater management and replenish the buffer, the entire buffer area within the
property should be planted in accordance with the Chesapeake Bay Riparian Buffers Modification
and Mitigation Guidance Manual no later than three (3) months following the approval of this
critical slopes waiver. These shall be bonded as a guarantee of survival for a minimum of 5
years.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 12
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Franco absent)
Mr. Strucko said SP-2008-00058, Harris Garage Amendment would go to the Board of Supervisors on
June 10 with a recommendation for approval.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the critical slopes waiver action was final and did not go to the Board.
The Planning Commission took a break at 7:18 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 7:30 p.m.
ZTA-2009-00002 Beauty/Barber Shops in CO district. Amend Sec. 23.2.1, By right, of Chapter 18,
Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 23.2.1 to add beauty shops
and barber shops as permitted accessory uses in the Commercial Office (CO) zoning district. A copy of
the full text of the ordinance is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the
Department of Community Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia. (Elaine Echols)
Ron Higgins summarized the request.
This application came as a citizen initiated application as a result of a sign issue on Rio Road. In looking
at temporary signs for a single chair operator barber shop staff determined that she had moved from one
building on Rio Road to another assuming that it was all the same. She went from a Planned District that
allowed the barber shop/beauty shop to a Commercial Office District, which does not. The basis issue
here is that they are asking that the use and CO that lists all of the customary accessory uses be
expanded to include the beauty shop and barber shops in CO. What they found in their research is that
this is a reasonable and customary use in Commercial Office District. These uses are allowed in all
commercial districts, Planned Districts, CA and HC. But these uses are not allowed in any fashion in the
CO district. Staff felt that was something of an omission since the use is being proposed as an accessory
use the kinds of uses that are in that accessory use list are pretty extensive and not unlike this kind of
use. Staff found that it was fairly common to see these kinds of uses.
There have been questions asked. Ms. Joseph had written about other incidental uses in a barber shop
or beauty shop. Without a definition staff had looked at the kinds of activities when putting this together
and it all hinges on cosmetology. Most of the definitions include that. Cosmetology is hair and skin care,
which would include all of those things that one would normally expect to be used for those kinds of
things. It is incidental to just hair cutting.
Staff recommends that the ordinance be amended to include the beauty shop and barber shop by -right.
Ms. Maxwell, the initiator of the request, asked about it and staff realized that it had been left out of the
ordinance. It had never come up. But staff found many instances in an office building in Albemarle,
including Commercial Office, where they have uses that predate any approvals.
Mr. Strucko invited questions for staff.
Ms. Joseph said when they look at the CO and the uses allowed it allows medical offices. So it is not a
matter of water use or anything like that.
Mr. Higgins noted that it does not have any correlation with other kinds of impact. He did some research
to find out if there was a particular reason it was left out and they simply could not find any evidence of it.
He pointed out that there was a slight wording change in #6 in the way it describes the 20 percent rule,
which just states it more clearly.
Mr. Strucko opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing
was closed and the matter before the Commission for discussion and action
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded to recommend approval of ZTA-2009-00002
Beauty/Barber Shops in CO district.
The motion was approved by a vote of 6:0.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 13
Mr. Strucko noted that the motion passes and would go before the Board of Supervisors at a date to be
determined.
ZTA-2009-00002 Beauty/Barber Shops in CO district — Proposed Zoning Tent Amendment
Language
ORDINANCE NO. 09-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article III, District Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 23.2.1 By right
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 23.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted in any CO district, subject to the requirements and limitations of
these regulations:
1. Administrative and business offices.
2. Professional offices, including medical, dental and optical.
3. Financial institutions.
4. Churches, cemeteries.
5. Libraries, museums.
6. Accessory uses and structures incidental to the principal uses provided herein. Sec# The aggregate
of all accessory uses iR GGmbinatioR shall not occupy more that twenty (20) percent of the floor area
of the buildings on the site. The following accessory uses shall be permitted:
-Eating establishments;
-Newsstands;
-Establishments for the sale of office supplies and service of office equipment;
-Data processing services;
-Central reproduction and mailing services and the like;
-Ethical pharmacies, laboratories and establishments for the production, fitting and/or sale of optical
or prosthetic appliances on sites containing medical, dental or optical offices;
-(Repealed 3-17-82)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 14
-Sale/service of goods associated with the principal use such as, but not limited to: musical
instruments, musical scores, text books, artist's supplies and dancing shoes and apparel..-t (Added 12-
3-86)
.. - M.
- eauty shoos.
7. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines,
transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and
operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and
appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise
expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with
Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93)
8. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks,
playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference
31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping
stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference
31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-89)
9. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
10. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21). (Added 3-17-82)
11. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86)
12. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6). (Added 9-9-92)
13. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat.
(Added 10-9-01)
14. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10-13-04)
(§ 20-23.2.1, 12-10-80; 3-17-82; 3-5-86; 12-3-86; 11-1-89; 9-9-92; 5-12-93; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-9-01 ; Ord.
04-18(2), 10-13-04)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dorrier
Ms. Mallek
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Slutzky
Ms. Thomas
ZTA-2009-00008 Bodv Shops and Towinq Services in HI Heavy Industrial District Amend Sec.
28.2.1, By right, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend
Sec. 28.2.1 to add body shops and the towing and temporary storage of motor vehicles as by right uses
in the Heavy Industry (HI) zoning district. A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the office of
the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development, County Office
Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Elaine Echols)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 15
Ron Higgins summarized the request.
• This is an item that staff brought forward at the same time because it was a similar issue. In
investigating another site and a towing service that had moved from one site to another on Route
29 North staff found that they have moved from an LI, Light Industry site to a HI, Heavy Industry
site. Staff found that the use was not allowed in HI and feels that this is an omission. The towing
and storage of motor vehicles is two different uses. There was a towing service for Hall's Body
Shop located down the hill that moved their operation up into the yard where Hall's Body Shop
keeps all of their cars waiting to be fixed. So there was a small area of the site that had a towing
service and storage of vehicles in a yard that was storing vehicles as part of a body shop.
• On further investigation staff realized that the body shop was not allowed in HI. Hall's Body Shop
has been located at this site for 20+ years. Staff looked at the purpose and intent of the HI and a
little bit of the logic of the uses that are in LI and HI. The uses are allowed in LI with a special use
permit. Staff felt that it would be useful to have this kind of use allowed somewhere by right.
Therefore, staff asks for that to be amended and to correct this omission.
• Staff suggests if the Commission recommends approval that they make a slight wording change
to the two line items #27 and #28 on page 6.
1. Body Shop (5.1.3.1) — should say .3.1.a and b so that it would tell them specifically what
applies to the by -right uses. Paragraph C would have not meaning since it talks about
special use permits.
2. In #28 it should reference 5.1.3.2.b. to help clarify that.
Mr. Strucko opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing
was closed and the matter before the Commission for discussion and action
Motion: Mr. Porterfield moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend approval of ZTA-2009-00008 with
the two modifications as noted by staff.
Discussion:
Mr. Kamptner asked to clarify the provisions that apply in 5.1.32. Is it really only the last clause that
should not be applying in subsection a.
Mr. Higgins replied that he thought about that initially when he got the inquiry. But then when looking at
the first sentence it states the obvious. This provision is intended to provide locations for the towing and
temporary storage of collision and disabled vehicles.
Mr. Kamptner asked if the second sentence, "No body and mechanical work, painting, etc." is not to be
allowed for a towing and temporary storage of motor vehicles use.
Mr. Higgins noted that they are about to allow body shops by right. Therefore, it seemed a little strange to
have that.
Mr. Kamptner said that they were overlapping. All of these things that are excluded in 5.1.32.a would be
allowed under 5.1.31.
Mr. Higgins replied yes.
The motion was approved by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Strucko noted that the motion passes and ZTA-2009-00008 would go before the Board of Supervisors
at a date to be determined.
ZTA-2009-00008 Body Shops and Towing Services in HI Heavy Industrial District
ORDINANCE NO. 09-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 16
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article 111, District Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 28.2.1 By right
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 28.2.1 By right
Except as otherwise limited by section 28.2.2.14, the following uses shall be permitted by right in the HI
district: (Amended 2-13-85)
1. Automotive, farm and construction and machinery products assembly.
2. Brick manufacturing, distribution.
3. Concrete mixing plant, storage, distribution.
4. Dry-cleaning plants.
5. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09).
6. Machine shops, tool and die, blacksmithing, boiler shops and similar operations.
7. Manufacture of heavy household, commercial and industrial appliances.
8. Manufacture of building components.
9. Manufacture, distribution, service of individual sewage disposal systems.
10. Manufacture and recycling of tires.
11. Metal fabrication and welding operations.
12. Mobile home manufacturing, distribution.
13. Moving businesses, including storage facilities.
14. Petroleum, gasoline, natural gas and manufactured gas bulk storage (reference 5.1.20).
15. Recreational vehicle and components manufacturing, distribution.
16. Sawmills (reference 5.1.15), planing mills, wood preserving operations, woodyards.
17. Veterinary or dog/cat hospitals, indoor accessory kennels (reference 5.1.11).
18. Warehouse facilities.
19. Storage yards. (Amended 11-12-08)
20. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding tower structures and including poles, lines,
transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and
11%W operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and
appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. (Amended 5-12-93)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 17
21. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks,
r.Y playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference
31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping
stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference
31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-89)
22. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
23. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86)
24. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat.
(Added 10-9-02)
25. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10-13-04)
26. Heavy equipment and heavy vehicle parking and storage yards. (Added 11-12-08)
27. Body shops (reference 5.1.31.a and bl
8. Towing and temporary storage of motor vehicles (reference 5.1.32.b1..
(§ 20-28.2.1, 12-10-80; 2-13-85; 3-5-86; 11-1-89; 5-12-93; Ord. 02-18(6), 10-9-02; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-
04)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dorrier
Ms. Mallek
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Slutzky
Ms. Thomas
ZTA-2009-00005 Enforcement and Administration Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 31.1, Enforcement,
zoning administrator, 34.3, Appeal to the board of zoning appeals, and 36.1, Violations; amend and
renumber Secs. 31.2.2, Building permits, 31.2.3.1, Certificate of occupancy, 31.2.3.2, Zoning compliance
clearance, 31.2.4, Special use permits, 31.2.4.1, Reserved to board of supervisors, 31.2.4.2, Application,
31.2.4.2.1, Limitation of filing new application after original denial, 31.2.4.2.2, Withdrawal of application,
31.2.4.3, Conditions, 31.2.4.4, Revocation, 37.1, Criminal penalty, 37.2, Civil penalty, and 37.3, Injunctive
relief and other remedies; add Secs. 31.3, Zoning permits, 31.4, Certificate of occupancy, 31.5, Zoning
clearance, 36.2, Enforcement; repeal Secs. 31.1.1, Enforcement of board of zoning appeals decisions,
31.1.2, Enforcement of minimum requirements, 31.1.3, Interpretation by zoning administrator, 31.2,
Permits (heading only), 31.2.3, Certificates of occupancy; zoning compliance clearance (heading only),
and 31.2.5, Review of public uses for compliance with the comprehensive plan; and repeal (but relocate
substance into new secs.) Secs. 31.2.1, Permits required; conformance, 31.2.3.3, Authority not to issue
certificate of occupancy or zoning compliance clearance, 36.2, Notice of violation, 36.3, Remedies not
exclusive, 36.4, Complaints regarding violations, 37.1, Criminal penalty, 37.2, Civil penalty, and 37.3,
Injunctive relief and other remedies; of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This
ordinance would amend Sec. 3.1 to define several terms commonly used in the Zoning Ordinance; would
amend and reorganize Sec. 31.1 by restating the authority of the zoning administrator and repealing
subsections 31.1.1, 31.1.2, and 31.1.3; would amend and reorganize Sec. 31.2 by clarifying the duty of
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 18
the zoning administrator to review and act on building permit applications, repealing subsections 31.2.1
and 31.2.2; would add Sec. 31.3, to establish the duty of the zoning administrator to determine a
proposed structure's compliance with the zoning ordinance where it is not subject to the Building Code,
Sec. 31.4, to establish the duty of the zoning administrator to review and act on certificates of occupancy,
and Sec. 31.5, to delineate when zoning clearances are required and to establish the duty of the zoning
administrator to review and act on zoning clearances; would renumber Sec. 31.2.4, Special use permits,
and its subsections, to Sec. 31.6, and reorganize that section with corrections to cross-references; would
amend and reorganize Sec. 34.3 by restating the requirements for appealing a decision to the board of
zoning appeals and by adding that an appeal of a decision pertaining to temporary or seasonal
commercial uses must be filed within 10 days of the decision if the notice of violation states that the 10-
day appeal period applies, rather than the generally applicable 30-day appeal period; would amend and
reorganize Sec. 36.1, which declares various violations of the zoning ordinance to be unlawful; would
repeal Secs. 36.2, 36.3 and 36.4 and incorporate those sections into new Sec. 36.2, which
comprehensively establishes the authority of the zoning administrator to enforce the zoning ordinance
and to establish general procedures; would renumber and amend current Sec. 37.2 to 36.3, to establish
procedures and maximum civil penalties for violations of the zoning ordinance; would renumber and
amend current Sec. 37.1 to 36.4, to establish procedures and maximum criminal penalties for violations of
the zoning ordinance; would renumber and amend current Sec. 37.3 to 36.5, allowing any violation to be
enforced by injunctive relief or other remedies. A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the
office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development, County
Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Rob Heide)
Rob Heide presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the executive summary. (Attachment)
ZTA 2009-005 - Zoning Amendments relating to Enforcement and Administration
Origin
This ZTA results from an effort to improve procedure and provide clarity in administering the Zoning
Ordinance.
■ This ZTA proposes to:
❑ Reorganize the current ordinance;
❑ Update sections to better align with Virginia State Code;
❑ Add new provisions for Zoning administration and enforcement.
Background
Many of the proposed amendments involve housekeeping -type updates, such as:
■ Reformatting/renumbering sections and language within sections;
■ Adding definitions, where previously absent;
■ Changing staff titles to reflect current organizational structure;
■ Outlining current process and procedure for specific zoning practices.
New Ordinance Content
Generally speaking, the proposed additions involve establishing new procedures to more effectively
administer the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed changes include:
■ Establishing a definition for Zoning Permit; (Note: Currently a building permit is used for
several different things and it gets confusing from time to time. This will certainly make it
clearer to applicants.)
■ Specifying cases where an approved final zoning inspection acts in the place of a new
CO; (Note: In certain activities there is not a need for a new CO. It is unclear right now
on how a change to a building interior ends and is it okay to occupy at this point. This
proposal clears it up a little bit.)
■ Administratively approving site plan bond extensions beyond one year; (Note: Currently
that is a requirement in the ordinance for the Board of Supervisors to do. Having recently
taken one to them the Board indicated a desire for staff to be able to do that at our level.)
■ Applying the same safety standards of Certificate of Occupancy approval to that of
Zoning Clearance; (Note: There are cases where a CO is not required, but a new
business entity is going in. With this change staff would have the ability to look at the
new entity and find out if there are any additions to a site that need to be made for safety
considerations. Currently the ordinance allows staff to do that for CO and they are
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 19
requesting that it be extended to the zoning clearance.)
■ Shortening the appeal period for violations relating to temporary events; (Note: This is
something new in the State Code. It would allow staff to be more efficient in dealing with
those scenarios.)
■ Delineating investigative tools provided for in the Virginia State Code; (Note: It would
better align our ordinance with what the state authorizes us to do already.)
■ Providing ordinance language for a violation ticket system and expanded notice of
violation delivery methods.
Outcomes
We have identified two broad service improvements to the community:
■ Improves clarity and procedures relating to applications;
■ Improves efficiency and effectiveness for administration of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. McCulley distributed a revised full copy of the proposed text and outlined the changes highlighted in
yellow, as follows. These changes came up after the report was sent out with the draft text. A couple of
the changes came up after consideration of some questions Ms. Joseph had.
Latest Editions to Executive Summary
❑ (page 3) Section 31.1 a 5: Add reference to Section 15.2-2311C to be consistent with Virginia
Code;
❑ (pages 7 & 8): Section 31.5 a: Changed references about uses to be consistent between #1, 2
and 3; (Note: In the section on zoning clearances there was an inconsistency in the reference
that talked about commercial and industrial uses. Staff thought it would be more appropriate to
be uniform because they are all non-residential other than agricultural uses that they regulate by
a zoning clearance.)
❑ (page 10) Section 31.7: Decided not to remove reference to compliance with the Comp Plan
even though it is self-executing; (After Ms. Joseph expressed a concern staff along with the
County Attorney's Office decided that there was no harm in leaving the reference.)
❑ (page 11) Section 34.3 e: Added language to clarify that an appeal will not be forwarded to the
BZA until the fee is paid; (Note: Staff found that a lot of people are appealing notice of violation
just to stay their enforcement activity against them and then they don't pay the fee. The request
then hangs open. This change means that staff would not have to process the appeal to the BZA
and expend a lot of staff time until the fee is paid.)
❑ (page 14) Section 36.3h: Clarified term "land development" with descriptive language. (Note:
This change resulted from a question from Ms. Joseph. It is confusing from the State Code.
There is an exclusion of enforcement of violations by civil penalties that relate to land
development. The way it was worded was very unclear. Mr. Kamptner added some language to
try to make it clearer as to what is and is not excluded.)
Mr. Heide noted that staff recommends approval of ZTA 2009-005 Zoning Amendments relating to
Enforcement and Administration as submitted and updated.
Mr. Strucko invited questions from the Commission.
Mr. Edgerton asked on page 7 and 8 the highlighted parts regarding nonresidential other than agricultural
use is that because the Code forbids them to regulate through zoning agricultural use.
Mr. Kamptner replied that this is just to capture what our zoning ordinance has provided up until now. He
suggested that Ms. McCulley can explain it better. He noted that zoning clearances are called zoning
compliance clearances which focus on changes to existing or new commercial or industrial uses. The
terminology that is used here highlighted in yellow is broader. They are trying to capture everything that
is not a residential use excluding agricultural uses.
Mr. Edgerton questioned if other than agricultural if that because the State Code prohibits regulation of
agricultural use. Agricultural use would be exempted from this if he was reading it correctly.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 20
Mr. Kamptner replied that the kind of activities they are trying to capture through the zoning clearance
process does not include agriculture. A lot of structures and activities are exempt from local regulation
under state law. The zoning clearance process has always been intended to address the other types of
uses.
Mr. Edgerton noted that he was just curious because he was recently in Maryland and drove through
some rural land north of Baltimore and saw a number of silos that were about 200' high. There was a lot
of crop land and grazing land in that area. He noted that they don't see that in Albemarle County. He
asked if that is something that would be totally exempt from any zoning if someone wanted to build a tall
silo. He was curious because they had been discussing height limitations on wind turbines.
Ms. McCulley replied that there is a height exemption for silos.
Mr. Kamptner noted that there were a couple of other things that can clarify why agricultural is singled
out. An agricultural use is defined in the zoning ordinance as the cultivation and tilling of the soil for the
production of crops or trees or horticultural or vita -cultural purposes. The other thing is that under federal
law under USDA regulations the federal perspective is that in certain context that agriculture is really an
industrial type of activity. This helps differentiate agriculture from the type of industrial activities that they
are trying to capture through the zoning clearance process.
Ms. McCulley noted that to answer the question about the silo there is an express exemption from the
height limitations for silos in Albemarle County.
Ms. Joseph questioned why staff put in the definition of family in the proposed language of this section.
She asked in the definition of family if they can't have more than four unrelated people.
Ms. McCulley replied that it depends on the zoning district.
Ms. Joseph acknowledged that they have different definitions for family. In the proposed language they
are putting in two different places that they make sure that everyone knows it is a violation if they have
more people in the house than allowed. This really bothered her because it really smacks a political
decision to do something like this. She was wondering why they are making this an issue.
Ms. McCulley replied that they are not so much making it an issue as trying to adopt all the tools that they
have given through the Virginia Code. It really has not been so much of an issue here. But in the event it
became an issue and they had to enforce some of the occupancy limitations it is extremely difficult
without some of the provision that they would have for an inspection warrant and things like that. One of
the things Ms. Joseph was referring to was on page 12, Section 36.2.c Subpoenas duces tecum. It gives
a tool for determining if there is an occupancy violation.
Ms. Joseph asked if this was an occupancy that the building inspector would determine that there are too
many people living here or this would be based on the family definition.
Ms. McCulley replied that it would be based on the family definition.
Ms. Joseph noted that she was not crazy about that addition.
Mr. Loach pointed out that from having come from an area where this was really problematic, especially
with rental units, he can see the applicability of these sections. He understands what Ms. Joseph was
saying, but that on the other side of the coin it is not pretty.
Ms. Porterfield suggested one minor correction in defining the zoning administrator. She always thought
when defining something that you should not use the same words. She suggested saying the officer
charged to administer and enforce Chapter 18 Zoning or his or her designee. She was just making a
suggestion and could live with it either way.
Mr. Kamptner noted that staff would take a look at that.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 21
Mr. Strucko opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing
was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission.
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend approval for ZTA-2009-00005
Enforcement and Administration.
Ms. Joseph voted aye with reservations.
The motion was approved by a vote of 6:0. (Franco absent)
Mr. Strucko noted that ZTA-2009-00005 would go before the Board of Supervisors meeting on July 1 with
a recommendation for approval of the following.
ORDINANCE NO. 09-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE
IV, PROCEDURE, AND ARTICLE V, VIOLATION AND PENALTY, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article IV, Procedure, and Article V, Violation and Penalty, are
hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 34.3 Appeal to the board of zoning appeals
By Amending and Renaming:
Sec. 31.1 ERfOFGeFnent zening admini6tFate Designation of zoning administrator; authority
Sec. 36.1 Violations — general!,y
By Amending, Renumbering and Renaming Where Noted (old section number first, followed by
name, followed by new section number):
Sec. 31.2.2
Building permits Sec. 31.2 (part) and Sec. 31.3 (part) Zoning permits
Sec. 31.2.3.1
Certificate of occupancy Sec. 31.4
Sec. 31.2.3.2
Zoning seMpliaRGe clearance
Sec. 31.5
Sec. 31.2.4
Special use permits
Sec. 31.6
Sec. 31.2.4.1
Reserved to board of supervisors
Sec. 31.6(part)
Sec.31.2.4.2
Application
Sec. 31.6(part)
Sec. 31.2.4.2.1
Limitation of filing new application
after original denial
Sec. 31.6(part)
Sec. 31.2.4.2.2
Withdrawal of application
Sec. 31.6(part)
Sec.31.2.4.3
Conditions
Sec. 31.6(part)
Sec.31.2.4.4
Revocation
Sec. 31.6(part)
Sec_ 31.2.5
Review of public
to
Sec. 31.7
features determine substantial accord
withthecomprehensive plan
Sec. 37.1
Criminal penaltyi
Sec. 36.4
Sec. 37.2
Civil penaltyip&
Sec. 36.3
Sec. 37.3
Injunctive relief and other remedies
Sec. 36.5
By Repealing:
Sec. 31.1.1 Enforcement of board of zoning appeals decisions
Sec. 31.1.2 Enforcement of minimum requirements
Sec. 31.1.3
Interpretation by zoning administrator
Sec. 31.2
Permits (heading only)
Sec. 31.2.3
Certificates of occupancy; zoning compliance clearance (heading only)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 22
By Repealing But Moving Substance Into a New Section (old section number and name first,
followed by new section number:
Sec. 31.2.1
Permits required; conformance
Sec. 31.2(part), Sec. 31.3(part) and Sec.
36.1(part)
Sec. 31.2.3.3
Authority not to issue certificate of
occupancy or zoning compliance
clearance
Sec. 31.3(part) and Sec. 31.4(part)
Sec. 36.2
Notice of violation
Sec. 36.2
Sec. 36.3
Remedies not exclusive
Sec. 36.2
Sec. 36.4
Complaints regarding violations
Sec. 36.2
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec.3.1 Definitions
/q f' /1 l" 11 • • •_•- p -.l •- Il -• • - • • l� •1 •-
111111,111111111
I' I'll- • •1 1� • - •7111 . ITT!!. . • - •- - �- p .I�
--
subdivision plat, sate • .1 or application plan. References in this cha - to "premises," .I•
• or "parcels" to .
-• Q • • • I r M I • ff. - • -• N Z- FORM ' I I •• - ra Il- ••- •
• • ••- - • - • I . ••-
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 23
Article IV. Procedure
Section 31. Administration; and Enforcement and Interpr-etatien
•-r • • .•1 ,l• - • - / .• - / • �- 11416111111vaoill •
• - /• / .• - ./• 1=4 ME•/ • .•
El./07T.• - ]HUMUM - •
l
-//- /- /- • • - • • •/ •/ • ll • •
- II I I • -�
•09- /• • /- -• • • - • - •- - 11 -• • •- • . • •
/• •Ilf el - Icf - .s /* i • • • ./ � • •
•/ .•. - -/WMFW•Mo .•• •• - •/ • • • --• l� • - •
mmm
•- l /• • •I M.F.Hrom/ • - • • /KUM
•/ • • -N. • • O- -Himn- gomme Eno 11wi M- • •1! .. 1
-1R
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 24
• Enforcing the provisions of Iis chapter regulating the numberof •- • •- '• •
occupy a single-family residentmaldwelling provided enforcement is I
compliance wiffi .•D .• •cal, state and federal fair housing lawKand
Making7. decisions and determinations as t• whether a p-Id lg sffite plan, subdivision
countybuilding permmt application or any other application sub*ect to review and a
or - program • • • - I this QbapAeL
• Absence
of •-
•
not Il
•/ The
specific•
expressly
•mi4
the
zoning administrator•
•I •
1 .•
• be construed
• be-
• • I'
•I
1! -•ll
•
• .dl
• -
• -
•
- -
••
I•
• 'c
State law reference — Va. Code § 15.2-2286(A)(4), (14).
See.-31.2 Per -mots
(§ 31.2.1, 12 10 80; Ord 01 18(6) 10 3-04 )
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 25
., • - •FIRRIZEKsiolilloiWTHER •11• - , - • • l• •• • • • •
•• I. I• l- 1- 1. • .11- • •- •p• - -. • ••- •_ - • •
• •.• . . - 11• .- • . -• . III Poll - I!. •- IR - • • • I-. •
• • reIRRIF •p• - • • l- 1 • • .1 - -. _ -• • - •
Surety.
Before2.
• a certificate
of occupancy,• • administratc
-•
-
developer •
provide
-• check, bond.with surety-
of -• • • 1-
• 11
of
of 1
shall be in a form• • the county
attorney,
.11•_
l
for and conditioned
upon the cQmpletiQn of t"
p• • -I /
one
••1 the request
of I- developer Drior tQ the expiration
of h
•I
l! -liministrator
may extend
the period of -ty if the developer
demQnstrates
that
an extension
-Q-•
b- - of adverse weather conditionsor
other
circumstances
beyQnd
the
developer's control, rather than the developer's
failure to
diflgently
pursue
completion
or other reasons,
1 :1 • ; • • • • •
1 • 1 1
d. Circumstances
when certificaLp.
of occupangy shafi not be issued. The zoning
administrator shall
not - a certificate
of
occupancy
the following ckumstances:
1 . No certificate
of
occupancy
shall be issued in violation of this chapter.
(Amended 10-3-
2. No certificate
of
occupancy
5hall be -• if, after reviewof any
building, - or
protect
the public
health or
safety, regardless of whether the imr)rovements
are shown on
the
- plan.••-•
• • •Amended
1 1 •
• • • 1 : • 1
Other information
for building
official,-
zoning adm"nustrator shall informbuilding
official •
any other appl6cable
laws
or any other
12rovision of the Code to which the
building or structure
does not•11•
• therefore.
a certificate
of occupancy should not be
issued by - building
•
Sec. 31.5 Zonmna
- zonino administrator
clearance
shall
r-
-qfor
•1 • -
•
•
a. When required.
' zoning
cleacance shallbe
required in
the followqng
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 28
�. .- . / -� •1 . . - - • • • • Kf-1 • . - �• •
residential;other than.• 3. Change of occupant, Prior to a- new occupant taking poasession of an existing non-
re6i. ZMtan an agricultural, use,
4. Specific buildings. structuLes or uses, Prior to establ 0 shing any building, structure or use for
which a zoning clearance is required under section 5.
b. Approval. If the proposed building, structur improvement . and sit% and the proposed
thereof. comply with this chanter, the zoning administrator shall issue the zonina Qlearance,
C. Circumstance when -zoning clearance shall not be issued. The zoning administrator shall not
issue a zoning --clearance if, after review of any site, the zoning administrator d termin .s tha
additional improvements are necessary to protect the public health or afety. regardless of
ether the improvements are shown on the site plan. (Added 9-9-92; Amended 10-3-01) (§
31.2.3.3, 9-9-92; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01
d. Commercial and industrial uses defined For the purposes of this section 31.4. prod do
agriculture is not a commercial or industrial use and a home occupation class A or class B is a
commercial use. (Added 9-9-92; Amended 10-3-01)
e. Effect of renumberina and renaming, Any other section of this chapter that refers to sectLQD
31.2.3.2 or to a zoning compliance clearance shall be deemed to be a reference to section 31.4
or a zoning clearance.
(§ 31.2.3.2, 9-9-92; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01)
111. FOyerd site plan (Added 9_9_97• Amee.ded 10 3 n�\
Sec. 31 .4 31.6 Special use permits
Sec. 31.2..4.1 31.6.1 Reserved to board of supervisors
The board of supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted
hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by
the board of supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the
character of the district will not be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the
purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional
regulations provided in section 5.0of this e.,di.,- nGe and with the public health, safety and general
welfare.
Sec. 313.4.2 31.6.2 Application
Application for a special use permit shall be made by the filing thereof by the owner or contract purchaser
of the subject property with the zoning administrator, together with a fee as set forth in section 35.0 of this
WdinanGe. No such permit shall be issued unless the board of supervisors shall have referred the
application therefor to the commission for its recommendations. Failure of the commission to report
within ninety (90) days after the first meeting of the commission after the application has been referred to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 29
the commission shall be deemed a recommendation of approval. Provided, however, any day between
`fir►, the date an applicant requests or consents to a deferral or continuance of the consideration of the
application by the commission until the date of the deferred or continued hearing by the commission shall
not be counted in computing the ninety (90) day review period. The board of supervisors may extend the
review period upon a request by the commission.
The board of supervisors shall act upon such application and render a decision within a reasonable time
period.
No such permit shall be issued except after notice and hearing as provided by ^+'^^ 15.2 "^^ of the
Bede and Virginia Code & 15.2-2204 and section 33.8 of this chapter �OCTIN'� nc oRQ ER -Y
(Amended 5-5-82; 6-19-96)
Sec. 31.2.4.2.1 Limitation ..i filing n .J Galion afteF original denial
a. Limitation of filing new application after original denial. Upon denial by the board of supervisors
of any application filed pursuant to section 31.2.4.2 31.6.2 above, substantially the same petition
shall not be reconsidered within twelve (12) months of the date of denial. (Added 6-19-96)
Sec. 31 .2.4.2.2 WithdFa ai of petition
b. Withdrawal of petition. An application shall be withdrawn, or be deemed to be withdrawn, as
provided herein: (Added 10-3-01)
al. An application filed pursuant to section 3'OTLTC 31.6.2 above may be withdrawn upon
written request by the applicant. The written request must be received by the body
considering the application prior to it beginning consideration of the matter on the
meeting agenda. Upon receipt of the request for withdrawal, processing of the
application shall cease without further action by the commission or the board.
Substantially the same application shall not be reconsidered within twelve (12) months of
the date of the withdrawal unless the body considering the application at the time of
withdrawal specifies that the time limitation shall not apply. (Added 6-19-96; Amended
10-3-01)
b2. If the applicant requests that further processing or formal action on the application be
indefinitely deferred, the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn
by the applicant if the commission or the board does not take action on the application
within twelve (12) months after the date the deferral was requested. Upon written
request received by the director of planning and GOMMURity develepmepA before the
application is deemed to be withdrawn, the director may grant one extension of the
deferral period for a period determined to be reasonable, taking into consideration the
size or nature of the proposed use, the complexity of the review, and the laws in effect at
the time the request for extension is made. (Added 10-3-01)
(§ 31.2.4.2.2, 6-19-96; Ord.01-18(6), 10-3-01)
Sec.-3;�.3 31.6.3 Conditions
The board of supervisors may impose upon any such permit such conditions relating to the use for which
such permit is granted as it may deem necessary in the public interest and may require a bond with
surety or other approved security to ensure that the conditions so imposed shall be complied with. Such
The conditions shall relate to the purposes of this ordinance, including, but not limited to, the prevention
of smoke, dust, noise, traffic congestion, flood and/or other hazardous, deleterious or otherwise
undesirable substance or condition; the provision of adequate police and fire protection, transportation,
water, sewerage, drainage, recreation, landscaping and/or screening or buffering; the establishment of
special requirements relating to the building setbacks, front, side and rear yards, off-street parking,
ingress and egress, hours of operation, outside storage of materials, duration and intensity of use,
building height and/or other particular aspects of occupancy or use. Except as the board of supervisors
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 30
may otherwise specifically provide in a particular case, any condition imposed under the authority of this
section shall be deemed to be essential to and nonseverable from the issuance of the permit itself.
(Amended 10-3-01)
(§ 31.2.4.3, 12-10-80; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01)
Sec.31.2.4. 31.6.4 Revocation
Any special use permit issued pursuant to this chapter may be revoked by the board of supervisors, after
notice and hearing pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-2204, for willful noncompliance with this chapter or
any conditions imposed under the authority of section 31.2:43 31.6.3. If the use, structure or activity for
which a special use permit is issued is not commenced within twenty-four (24) months after the permit is
issued, the permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted thereunder shall thereupon
terminate. For purposes of this section, if the use authorized by the permit requires the construction of
one or more structures, the term "commenced" means starting the lawful physical construction of any
structure necessary to the use authorized by the permit within twenty-four (24) months after the permit is
issued. The board of supervisors may, as a condition of approval, impose an alternative period in which
to commence the use, structure or activity as may be reasonable in a particular case. A determination
that a permittee has commenced a use, structure or activity under this section is not a determination that
the permittee has acquired a vested right under Virginia Code § 15.2-2307. (Amended 10-3-01)
(§ 31.2.4.4, 12-10-80; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01)
Sec. 34�.5 31.7 Review of public uses fGF GGMplianGe features to determine substantial accord
with the comprehensive plan
No StFeet, paFk or other publiG aFea, eF public strUGture, GF PUbliG Utility, publiG building OF publiG seWiGe
GGFPGFatmen other than railreads, whetheF publirly or privately GWRed, shall be ronGtFUGted, established e
has been submitted to and apffOved by the G0FnFnis;s;ffie-.n -;;c-; being substantially OR aGGE)Fd with the adopted
Sec. 34.3 Appeal to the board of zoning appeals
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 31
.an site plan.••- of deve-Imment, mning permit, •t It clearance. or •/• • accepted or
impoed in coniunction witb any county approval under this chapter-
C. Structures without buffoYng permits. Any alructure for which a building permit applicaf*—nja
required that.is started, established, constructed. recQnstruQted, enl
building permL
c2dificate of occu ired that is conducted, operated or maintained without-a-ceftffif Qate
of occupanc-,
• • • • 1 • 1 1
Upon beGoFniRg awaFe of any violation of any pFeVi6iGR6 of this eFd;nanE;e, the ZOR*Rg admiR66#ater shall
WheReveF
WFitten GOMplaffiRt. SuGh raomplaiRt stating fully the Gause and basis theFeef shall be filed with the ZORORg
as provided by this ordiRaRGe.
Sec- 36-2 u •
The •I /o administrator is autl• -• to enforce this chapter• •
a. Investiluation, Upon receipt of a complaint or a request to investigate w ether this ch
bg b-rL violated, the zoning admini-strator or his designee shall conduct an in
b, Inspection warrants and search warrants, The 7oning administrator is authQrized to requesLarid
execute inspection warrants -• by .• - or •.l of • •- - •/ • allow the
inspection of dwellings authorized under Virginia Code § 15.2-2286(A)(1 5). The zoning
administrator als• is authorized to request and execute search warrants issued by • of
warrant,competent murisdiction as provided by law, Prior to seekLn=gznj-naWction warrant or a search
i- zoning admini-strator or his agent shall make a reasonableeffort to •• •
from the owner or tenant to enter the structure Qr prQperty to conduct an mnspectL'Qn or search,
C. Subpoenas duces tecum. Whenever the zoning3d �ii mtor has reasonable cause tQ-befie�v
that any person has engaged or engaging / any violationof lchapter that ll Qccup-ancy
in a dwelling unit and, after a good faith effort to obtain the data or information necessary IQ
determine whether a violation has occurred, has been unable • obtain such informatioI l"
request that the office of the cQunty allaney petition the 4udge of the general district court for a
subpoena duces tecum against any person refusino to produce the -data or informatibn_as
authorized under Virginia Code F4 15.2-22BBIAXA),
d. Notice of • • exception, If, upon COMDjetim of - investigation. the zoninQ administrator
(§ 37.1; Ord. 00-18(5), 6-14-00)
State law reference — Va. Code § 15.2-2286(A)(5).
Sec. 36.5 Injunctive relief and other remedies
Any violation of this chanter may be restrained. corrected. or abated as the case may be by injunction or
other appropriate relief.
(§ 37.3; Ord. 00-18(5), 6-14-00)
State law reference — Va. Code § 15.2-2208.
.....
Niffil
ffiffi-01140 W.-....
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 36
estabis6hed- fn-.r thp- P-ffp-.n signatwe tGa-aan admission of liability shall have the 6aFne fOFGe
for aRy purpose. if a PeF60R GhaFged with a violation de -es not P-.'eGt to eRteF a waiver of trial and admit
liability, the violation shall be tFied an th GGUFt OR the sarne maRReF and with th
tome.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dorrier
Ms. Mallek
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Slutzky
Ms. Thomas
Old Business:
Mr. Strucko asked if there was any old business. There being none, the meeting moved to the next item.
New Business:
Mr. Strucko asked if there was any new business. He noted that at the last Planning Commission
meeting Places 29 was discussed. The Commission went through a lengthy discussion about taxes,
financing and the time value of money. He felt that it was a good discussion. Since that meeting the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 37
Free Enterprise Forum issued a report and press release that has caused a lot of concern among the
*kve Commissioners. With the help of staff he put together a response, which was emailed today. He asked to
read the statement into record and solicit comments from other Commissioners.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that the Commission address the issue next week since Places29 was on the
agenda. Since she was absent from the meeting on Places29 she would not oppose it, but would abstain
from the discussion.
Mr. Strucko read a response to the Free Enterprise Forum's press release on Places29.
Public Statement from the Albemarle County Planning Commission
June 10, 2009
"On May 28, 2009 the Free Enterprise Forum (FEF) released a report titled Places 29 Reality Check
Report. The report contrasts an approach of discussing Places 29 costs in terms of current dollars with
an approach using projected future dollars, with assumptions made by FEF about future increases. While
we respect and understand FEF's approach in using assumptions about future increases to project costs
into the future, the Planning Commission's intent was to provide as reliable an estimate as possible in
terms of what we absolutely know, which is current dollar values. We certainly realize that there will be
an escalation factor, as there would be with any road construction project envisioned for the future here in
our community. We thoroughly discussed this very fact at our last work session on Places 29 on May 12,
2009 (at which FEF was present), a full two weeks prior to the FEF report release. We discussed and
vetted the issue in a public venue and an open Planning Commission meeting which was duly recorded in
our minutes for that meeting. These minutes are available to any interested member of the public for their
review.
Given that, it was very concerning to us to read the comments in the statement which accompanied the
release of the report, which portrayed the Planning Commission's approach as "beyond bad project
management, it is deceitful." That is an irresponsible, accusatory, and false statement which is at odds
with the type of civil discourse about critical community issues that FEF promotes by its mission.
According to the FEF website, that mission is "providing clear positive balance to the discussions of
important issues of the day." FEF's statement is not positive, balanced, or accurate.
We welcome FEF's continued involvement in and scrutiny of the Places29 Master Plan, as much is
gained by energetic public engagement in this type of process and many suggestions from FEF and
others have helped shape the plan to this point. We also hope that the tone of FEF's participation
improves and becomes mutually respectful and mindful of the fact that reasonable and well-intentioned
people can differ in how they view community issues."
It was the consensus of the Commission to release the media statement. (Mr. Loach, Ms. Joseph, Mr.
Edgerton, Mr. Strucko and Mr. Morris were in favor.) Ms. Porterfield abstained. Mr. Franco was out of
town and had not responded to the email.
Mr. Strucko noted that he would email the statement to the Commission and if there were no major
concerns then he would issue the release sometime between now and the next meeting. Upon receipt of
an affirmative response from each Commissioner he would immediately issue the media statement.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that for help with getting the statement to the media Mr. Strucko could work
through Lee Catlin on that.
There being no further new business, the meeting moved to the next item.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009 38
Em
Adjournment:
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 8:14 p.m. to the Tuesday, June 16, 2009 meeting at 6:00
p.m. at the County Office Building, Second Floor, Auditorium, 401 McIntire Road„Charlottesville, Virginia.
i, 1 i)•/I
V. Wayne Cirmberg,
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commissj n & Plan ing Boards)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 9, 2009
01